Wrist watch (1988)

From the September 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard

However established it may be, the Tories' reputation as the Party of Law and Order need not be taken seriously. When politicians — or police officers or judges — claim to have a remedy for crime, what they usually have in mind is a more rigorous and punitive response to it. The two are not necessarily connected

The Conservative manifesto at the 1979 election asserted that ". . . respect for the rule of law is the basis of a free and civilised life" and, as If that was an uncontentious statement of fact, plunged into a promise to ". . . spend more on fighting crime even while we economise elsewhere". The proposals in that declaration (rather hesitant by today’s standards) have by and large been implemented, for example there are now some 16,000 more police officers than in 1979 and it is usual for them to get more generous treatment in their pay rises than other government employees. Tougher ("brisker", in Willie Whitelaw's words) regimes have been introduced into Detention Centres and the laws which interfered with the courts’ powers to imprison young offenders have been abolished. But the Tories can hardly be satisfied with the results because since they came to power the incidence of reported crime has not ceased its steady upward path, increasing about six per cent a year. In 1979. just over 2½ million serious offences were recorded by the police: in 1986 there were nearly 4 million.

It seems almost inevitable that more people should be sent to prison, but there are many other choices open to the courts and a succession of Home Secretaries have appealed to them to view a prison sentence as a very last resort But the prison population is still climbing, with over 50.000 people in custody in England and Wales about one in every thousand of the total population. The government expect the figure to reach 56,000 by this time next year and possibly 70,000 by the year 2000. In the European states, Britain is fourth in the league table of the proportion of people sent to prison, with only Austria. Turkey and Luxembourg having a worse record. Such is the overcrowding in prisons that hundreds of unconvicted people pass their time on remand in police cells, often being shunted from one station to another. All of this is a very expensive business; it costs an average of £250 a week to keep a man in prison and a stay in police cells comes even dearer.

A fact which aggravates the anger of Tory hangers and floggers but which also provides them with some unacknowledged comfort is that about half of all known crime is committed by people under the age of 21. The age group above 30 is actually responsible for less crime than it was in 1979; the increase since then is almost entirely contributed by the under 30s. The highest incidence rate for crime is among the 15-year-olds and by the time they reach the age of 21 about a quarter of all males have come to the notice of the police. Home Secretary Douglas Hurd, attempting to discredit the Labour Party argument that crime springs from the dereliction of neglected inner cities or in chronic unemployment, has recently told of episodes of mob violence by young people in the more prosperous rural towns. For the Tories, the comfort in this is that these apparently wild people were born in the 1960s when, as all devotees of Margaret Thatcher are aware, the morals of Britain were in the flaccid grip of permissive hedonists like Roy Jenkins. with their derision for the proper ethical bases of society such as religion, the family, property, the rule of law. the royal family, the small shopkeepers of Grantham . . .  One of Tebbit’s favourite themes has always been the moral laxities of the Swinging Sixties. If it can be shown that those iniquitous times gave birth to a generation of hardened criminals, their lives of anti-social disruption mapped out for them when they were still micro-dot embryos, then the Thatcher government is not only absolved of all responsibility for the crime wave but is encouraged to get on with the job of re- imposing lost morals, through the agency of people like William Rees-Mogg.

The cure, one might think, threatens to be rather more deadly than the disease. In any case the argument might have some force were it not for the fact that young criminality did not begin with the 1960s. People who were teenagers then will remember the heyday of the 1950s Teddy Boys, whose elaborate hair style, drape jackets and thick-soled shoes were a delinquent uniform. Then there were the Mods and Rockers, whose idea of Bank Holiday fun was a running fight along some cowering sea front. The figures bear this out. Between 1938 and 1960 the number in every 100,000 of the 14-21 age group who were found guilty of indictable offences more than doubled. Between 1950 and 1960 crimes of violence committed by people aged 14-17 increased by 216 per cent and by those aged 17-21 by 153 per cent. Young crime was surging upwards a long time before the 1960s. according to Howard Jones, writing in 1967, ". . . the present increase in criminality is greatest among young people, whose share of the total seems to increase almost year by year. (Crime In A Changing Society ) Juvenile crime, a lot of it violent and senseless, was at that time also flaring up throughout Europe and North America

The fears and prejudices which young criminals stimulate, often among older workers who want to spend their last years in something like peace after a lifetime of drudgery, are easily exploitable through promises to impose fierce punishment. Control of offenders is now the vogue, rather than the “caring" approach which was enshrined in the Children and Young Persons Act of 1969. This piece of law was supposed to have the hitherto unremarked solution to young people's problems and therefore to their wayward behaviour. In fact the Act has never been fully implemented and now lies partly repealed, a discredited relic which in its day caused magistrates to fume impotently at the restrictions it imposed on then powers to imprison young offenders. Partially in response to this the 1982 Criminal Justice Act introduced the system of Youth Custody which, among other things, allowed magistrates to send youngsters to prison for however long they thought right, up to the maximum in their power. The result was an immediate increase in the numbers of young people in custody 70 per cent more for 14-16-year-olds. In 1987 over 20,000 men aged 17-21 were given a custodial sentence.

But these reforms have been no more successful than those they replaced and young law-breakers continue to be a preoccupation for the police, the courts and the penal system This has confronted the government with a problem which can be briefly outlined like this: crime committed by youngsters goes up year by year; shutting the youngsters away confirms rather than cures their delinquency; custody is not only ineffective but very costly; but the courts and the voters are in no mood to accept a more lenient way of dealing with young offenders; therefore there must be yet more reforms which will satisfy the appetite for control and punishment without involving a prison sentence. This reasoning has been around for some years now and has been responsible for a number of informal attempts to assuage punitive desires while keeping young offenders out of prison. Now the government has produced a Green Paper — Punishment, Custody and the Commentary — which has stirred up a lot of protest as well as approval.

The Green Paper introduces the concept of Punishment in the Community. Its most newsworthy proposal is the electronic tagging of offenders as a method of checking on their whereabouts and, in that way, sometimes imposing a kind of house arrest by remote control. The tags are electronic transmitters which are strapped to the wrist or ankle; this sounds awkward and offensive and that is how they look Some tags emit an unbroken signal which is transmitted by telephone to a central monitoring point, so that the wearer cannot move far from the telephone without this being known. Other tags can be programmed to give out a signal in response to a random telephone call. It is also possible to attach a breathalyser to the telephone so that the monitor calling from the other end would know, not only that the person wearing the tag is where they are supposed to be when they are supposed to be there, but also how much they have had to drink and when Big Brother would not only be watching you but checking up on your breath as well. . .

The Home Office insist that the whole project is still at the investigatory stage, one of a number of ideas they are putting up for discussion. A number of tags have been bought from abroad and are being attached for testing to the limbs of over-compliant civil servants. In America the tags are produced by companies like Bl Home Escort Systems of Colorado, Digital Products Corporation of Fort Lauderdale and Corrective Services Inc of Palm Beach. So far none of the equipment is made in this country but if the idea is implemented companies like Racal Chubb and Marconi, already close'y watching developments, would hope to be cut in on such a nice little earner

The Green Paper puts its proposal;. with an optimism which, though unfounded, is by now familiar. "Punishment in the community", it says, “would be particularly suitable for young men and women, who are likely to grow out of crime”. But there is no cause to believe, that building yet another sentence option into the system would reduce the numbers sent to prison; experience tells us otherwise. There has not been any shortage of choice open to the courts — fines, community service, suspended sentence — but in many cases these have been applied in such a way as to result in more people being sent to prison While the legal draftsmen labour at their sections and sub sections, their clauses and sub clauses, the prisons are crammed more and more, tightly What is overlooked is that the people who draw up the laws and those who pass them have no control over those who implement them. In many cases measures which were designed as an effective alternative to prison have been used as an alternative to those already in existence. In others, legal provisions have been virtually ignored, for example, despite all the publicity about the "short, sharp shock" regimes at detention centres, it turned out that many of the youths sent there actually enjoyed the tough regimes. Now so few are being given that sentence that the places are being converted into low security adult prisons.

Again, the experience of electronic tagging so far should not encourage the Home Office to go ahead with it here. Apart from the many technical snags encountered, basic problem with the tags is that they can be used only with someone who has a stable address and access to a telephone things which many of the people likely to be seen as fit subjects have little chance of having. A recent study by NACRO says that problems with the tags in Canada and the USA have been such that their use is severely limited. Most programmes apply to fewer than 20 people and in February 1987 only 826 tags were n operation throughout the USA, one-third of them on motoring offenders. 

Although the Home Office are unlikely to be unaware of these facts, the signs are that tagging offenders will go ahead in this country There will then be yet another degrading and gruesome ritual in the processing of people who have offended against capitalism's laws (the Green Paper states that 95 per cent of crime is against property). There will be another bureaucratic structure with its hierarchy and its forms in triplicate and different colours. Some vengeful appetites will be gratified. There is an alternative to this persistent mess but it will not be found in any Green Paper.

Ivan

The dogs do bark (1953)

From the September 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

Lowly but surely the match sellers, street singers, hawkers and blind fiddlers are coming back. Not as many as in the past, because there is still no mass unemployment; the writer, raised in East London in the years after 1918, remembers beggars in every main street. Undisguised begging is, of course, legally prohibited (nevertheless, it is still done in every big city in the world); the mendicant has to have something to play or something to sell, or, as an extra indignity if he can afford neither, he must sing for his succour. The war, which provided jobs even for the unfit, and its aftermath, which gave gratuities to the soldiers and pickings to the spivs,, took away the beggars. Now there aren’t the jobs and there isn’t the money, and the beggars are re-appearing.

Begging today is a series of unenviable one-man businesses, lacking organization or enterprise. It was not always so. The heyday of beggars was in the reign of Elizabeth the First. They went in gangs, hordes and regiments, often highly organized, with their specialists and their hierarchies. Some unknown rhymester of the sixteenth century coined a jingle which went:

“Hark! Hark! The dogs do bark—

The beggars are coming to town.”

It was no children’s song then, but a piece of grim news.

The numbers of sixteenth and seventeenth century beggars are astonishing. In London there were twelve thousand among a population of less than two hundred thousand in 1600. Holinshed recorded that

“. . . there is not one year, commonly, wherein three hundred or four hundred of them are not devoured and eaten up by the gallows in one place and other. Henry the Eighth, executing his laws very severely against such idle persons . . . did hang up threescore and twelve thousand of them, in his time.”

It was the same all over Europe. Huberman claims that a quarter of the people in Paris in the 1630's were beggars. The Low Countries swarmed with them. In sixteenth-century Switzerland, according to Renard and Weulersse:

". . . when there was no other means of getting rid of the beggars who besieged their houses or wandered in bands about the roads and forests, the wealthy even organized hunting parties against these wretched homeless ones.”

And in Spain, books like “Lazarillo de Tonnes” and Quevedo’s “Great Rogue” described in minute detail the organizations of beggars.

Where did they all come from? Many were peasants, driven from their land by enclosure and rack- renting. In the fifteenth century they had pulled down enclosures, started fires, risen in impotent protest; now they became beggars. Others were soldiers, returned penniless but with a taste for plunder from the continental wars, or set adrift from the disbanded feudal armies. The dissolution of the monasteries added former servants and retainers—"abbeylubbers,” they were nicknamed—to the ragged hordes; and took away, too, the principal source of charity to vagrants. Then there were chapmen, strolling players, gipsies, ballad-mongers, scholars—Gamaliel Ratsey and Luke Hutton, the Elizabethan highwaymen, were University men— and ever so many more. There was no work to be had, and no charity; the new owners of the land had no tradition of generosity to the poor. It was beg, steal or starve.

By the 1570’s there were huge guilds and fraternities of vagabonds; he who joined had to undergo initiation and serve an apprenticeship. The vagabonds, like the law, saw no difference between vagrancy and crime. They had their own dialect, called Pedlars’ French or the Canting Tongue, a mixture of Elizabethan English with the varied contributions of soldiers, foreign beggars and vagrant monks; some of its words—cant, foist, booze, crank—are still with us.

The head of a beggars’ fraternity was known as the Upright Man—certainly nor uprighteous, for he usually had more than one mistress, and they were called Morts or Doxies. Plain beggars were Rufflers; then there were the Clapperdogens, who blistered their flesh with arsenic and herbs to gain pity.. The Counterfeit Cranks ate soap to feign fits and the Abraham Men pretended to be mad, while Dummerers folded their tongues in their mouths to be thought dumb. If a beggar got his bread by telling tales of misfortune, he was a Freshwater Mariner. Among the petty thieves, there was the Hooker or Angler, who carried an iron- hooked staff and “fished” to good purpose with it; the Foist, who picked pockets; and the Nip, who slit purses when their owners looked the other Way—“a knight of the knife,” Ben Jonson called him. Most common of all in London was the Coney-catcher, or confidence trickster—the forefather of the spiv. There were Upright Women, too; Mary Frith, known as Moll Cutpurse, was the head of a gang which for years terrorized the Shooter’s Hill area.

The administrators of Elizabethan England tried hard to solve the problem. In 1571, a census of beggars and rogues was attempted; the following year, the famous edict was published by which "lusty and valiant beggars” were to be

". .. grevouslye whipped, and bumte through the gristle of the right Eare with a hot Yron of the compasse of an ynche about."

This seems to have offered little discouragement, and in 1598 further measures were introduced, including the instruction:

"Every vagabond found begging is to be stripped naked from the middle upwards, and openly whipped, until his or her body be bloody."

At the second offence, a beggar became a felon, and was liable to be hanged.

Whipping, branding and hanging gave no solution. In 1601, alarmed by bad harvests and what Thorold Rogers describes as “a growing disaffection,” Elizabeth’s last Parliament passed the Poor Law Act which, in general principles, remained unchanged until 1834. It made relief of the poor the task of each parish, to be paid for by compulsory Poor Rates. Did it solve the problem? Well, three years later, James the First was condemning vagrants to be branded with a large “R” on the left shoulder and. on a second offence, summarily transported to Virginia.

Some people had their own ideas of a solution. Edward Hext, a west-country Justice of the Peace, thought the beggars were merely lazy:

"Work they will not, neither can they, without extreme pains, by reason (heir sinews are so benumbed and stiff through idleness, as their limbs being put to any hard labour will grief them beyond measure."

Others said that drinking and gambling caused all the trouble; still more people put it down to the growth of London, which doubled its population between 1558 and 1600. Parliament tried to check the metropolitan spread as unsuccessfully as it tried to combat the beggars.

It was the growth of capitalism that did it. In the sixteenth century the merchants were securing the accumulations which were the starting point of industrial capitalism; and at the same time the other necessity, the class of free labourers, was coming into being. Broken away from their former security of subsistence, the beggars were part of the nascent working class, coming face to face with poverty and the freedom to starve. Gradually, as urban life developed, the vagabond fraternities fell away; in their place came organized crime and disordered medicancy. The poor were to be always with us.

In eighteenth-century Scotland there was the same problem. Fletcher of Saltoun estimated—probably too lavishly—that there were two hundred thousand “sorners,” or sturdy beggars: a sixth of the population. Some, called “gaberlunzies,” were licensed by the Kirk Sessions to beg from door to door, in country districts they were the carriers of news and the repositories of folk-lore.

And so it went on. More Acts of Parliament (usually passed in emergency or as the result of panic); the stocks, prison and transportation for the beggars. Defoe, who had reported the lives of the indigent in “Moll Flanders,” asked for work-houses in “Giving Alms No Charity”; eighteen years later, in 1722, they were set up. The nineteenth-century Poor Law Act made the workhouses places of terror. Not surprisingly, people did their best to keep out of them. The legislators tried hard to stamp out begging. Vagrancy Acts were passed in 1824, 1838 and 1873, and in 1904 a committee was set up by the Local Government Board to enquire into the whole thing.

Legally, the following activities are banned. Begging in public, or causing a child to beg; having no home or visible means of subsistence, or being unable to give a good account of oneself; telling fortunes; exposing wounds to get alms; peddling without a licence; failing to maintain one’s family. The Vagrancy Acts brought into being the street singers, the unmusical musicians and the rest.

Consider, then, the beggar. Brought into being by capitalism as the “free” labourer, without work or hope; scourged, branded, killed, hunted and ridiculed— tramping and mumping his way through four centuries, sometimes violent, sometimes obsequious, the symbol of the dispossessed. He was an angry peasant in 1553, a ruffler in 1603, a fugitive from the workhouse in 1853, a legless ex-soldier with a barrel-organ in 1923, and is a kerbside singer in 1953. Consider, too, the failure of brutes and humanitarians alike to do away with him . . .  and then consider the world that could be.

Robert Barltrop

Mayhem in Middlesbrough (2026)

From the October 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

The recent horrifying car crash on the A66, which took seven lives, has shone a light on the community in Middlesbrough and its conditions. Five young men and boys and two police officers lost their lives, when the young men – in a car with cloned plates – tried to avoid police pursuit by going the wrong way on a dual carriageway at three o’clock in the morning. The two officers had not been involved in the chase, they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

After the smash, it became clear that wider criminality had been involved, with the police swooping down and arresting 12 people on various organised-crime charges. Another car had been rammed into the house of the father one of the boys, and there is a suggestion that they took to the roads in response to this.

The immediate response was one of outpouring of sympathy for the dead officers. A suggestion by local MP, Anna Turley, that all of the victims be remembered was met with politicised rage. The right-wing hate machine of X (formerly Twitter) began by making suggestions that the five were from a traveller community, then quickly pivoted to calling them underclass scum when it turned out that they did not belong to any ethnic minority.

Instead, calls for the police or the army to be sent in to sort them out and remove them from the community became the agreed line (the machinery of social media bots and trolls is a swarm learning system that tries various tacks until if finds something that works and gets traction and responses). This line then fed into the response to the families of the five beginning to commemorate their loss. They held ‘balloon releases’ to remember their lost loved ones. The fact that the grieving families were themselves innocent of killing the policemen was lost in the vituperation of those who demanded a form of damnatio memoriae for the five.

When their funerals were held, the case became a national controversy, as local schools closed because of the perceived risks to the children from the disruption they may cause. Young men on quadbikes and motorbikes formed part of the funeral corteges. At one of the funerals, a sort of Viking send off of burnt stolen cars was arranged. Some of the friends of the five maintained that the police had killed them.

In the 1990s, it was commonplace to find burnt out cars on school playing fields in Middlesbrough. The twockers, as they were called, sometimes avoided charges of theft by giving back the cars they ‘took without owners consent’ (the origin of the word twoc). Burning them destroyed the evidence of who had taken the car for a joyride. Any large carpark around Teesside could become a venue for handbreak turns and reckless driving. The young men who did that then are the spiritual (if not biological) fathers of those who died on the A66.

Middlesbrough is a community in visible decline. Linthorpe Road, once an arterial row of useful shops has become a long stretch of fast-food outlets: the larger department stores have closed down. The industries upon which the area was built – steel and shipbuilding – have disappeared. Whilst it retains a lot of brownfield space recovered from its industrial past, which is useful for building new industries, any new activities are far from labour-intensive.

It is a feature of the wages system that whilst some are subjected to arduous toil, others, necessarily, are condemned to idleness. A reserve army of labour is required for several reasons. The reserve provides recruits to work when necessary and holds down wages. The threat of being thrown on the scrapheap serves as a visible reminder of what can happen to anyone who challenges the rule of capital. It can also serve as a source of political shock troops.

The more enterprising and energetic of the long-term unemployed can show an entrepreneurial flair by turning to crime, and finding means of getting hold of money that doesn’t involve themselves becoming employees. There is a plausible case that the young men in the car had themselves been ‘groomed’ into criminality. We’re a long way from getting to the bottom of what exactly happened.

The knock-on effects of long-term decline are a spiral of lack of incentive to educate or get educated, much less to try and integrate into a society that seems hell-bent on controlling people it sees more as a problem than as fellow citizens. It’s not a wonder that many of the young men see the police as a hostile force. The neglect begins early, and the children’s services on Teesside are overstretched and dealing with multi-generational neglect.

It shouldn’t be overlooked that there was serious anti-immigrant rioting in Middlesbrough, and there will be an overlap between that and the current wave of disorder. The people without access to the high-skilled jobs market, left behind by the current system and in an insular community, will have been easily incited to campaign about in-comers.

The objective effect of last year’s disorder and that around the funerals will be as if there has been a form of collective bargaining by riot, the public authorities will try to buy social peace, while at the same time putting more resources into policing. Far-right opposition will rail against giving anything to those who cannot even be seen to be useful to the labour market ‘surplus population’, while there is little prospect of attracting any new industry that could absorb (or make it worth training) the available labour pool.

Technological advances on a global scale means that an area built on mass industry has had to reassess its identity and the way in which it organises itself. Instead of writing off whole areas and the individuals within it, we can end the wages system and enable free co-operation instead of idleness characterised by police and criminal organisations.

Pik Smeet

 

 

Blogger's Note: 

Readers might be interested in the Socialist Standard article, Dreaming spires and screaming tyres, by Iain Jamieson, that dates from December 1991, which touches upon some of the same issues raised in Pik Smeet's article.

Life and Times: Detectorists and grave robbers (2026)

The Life and Times column from the July 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

I recently tuned in to two investigative series on Radio 4. Though they told what on the surface seemed quite different tales, they were linked by an important, in fact fundamental feature of the society we live in. They both equally vividly illustrated the hold that money has on us and the lengths to which some of us will go to obtain it. The first one told the story of two metal detectorists who stumbled upon a hoard of ancient Anglo-Saxon coins and decided not to follow the legal requirement to surrender them to the Treasury but to keep them and try to sell them secretly. The series was aptly entitled ‘Fool’s Gold’, since, in the end, the ‘gold’ they found had disastrous results for them. The second one, ‘The Grave Robbers’, investigated the fraudulent methods used by a covert group to claim the estates of people who die without leaving a will.

Detectorists declaring their discovery of ancient coins or artefacts are entitled to 50 percent of what the Treasury deems to be their value, the other 50 percent going to the owner of the land on which they were found. That value, however, is usually only a fraction of what collectors will pay on the black market. In this case the ‘official’ value of the coins in question was likely to be up to £12m. But the 50 percent of that amount the discoverers would have been eligible to receive was not enough for them and they chose to try to sell the coins themselves. It didn’t work, since, as the series told us, in the close-knit detectorist community secrets don’t stay secret for long, especially as, when some of the coins started appearing at a Mayfair auction house, rumours of an undeclared hoard begin to spread. The upshot was that the detectorists were exposed and went on the run, but finished up in the dock accused of theft and given prison sentences. However, hundreds of the coins remained unaccounted for, and still do.

The other series, ‘The Grave Robbers’, investigated a different kind of fraud, one where a ‘crime group’ uses forged wills to claim ownership of houses when people who lived in them on their own die without leaving a will. The ‘gang’ forges wills, as the programme put it, ‘to take the homes of the dead’, with the result that any genuine heirs that might exist are left with nothing. The series found that the group in question, based in Eastern Europe, was also involved in cannabis farms, money laundering and the sale of fake UK work visas. We hear from neighbours of a deceased man how the gang, using false but legally approved documents, had taken possession of his house, selling everything of value and using the property for whatever purpose they saw fit.

Both these stories illustrate the rampant hold that money or the prospect of it can have on human actions. And they are of course just the tip of the iceberg. We know that every day multiple attempts of all description are made to carry out what has come to be called ‘scam’ activity at the expense of both individuals and institutions, facilitated of course by the tools of electronic media.

Should we be surprised at this? Probably not, since the class-divided system we live in, where a tiny minority own most of the wealth and the vast majority own little but their ability to work for that majority in order to keep their heads above water, is by its nature a dog-eat-dog affair. Though vast wealth rarely brings meaningful satisfaction to the minority who have it, they do have praise and privilege heaped upon them, creating the temptation among others to look for ways of becoming part of that, to ‘get rich’, even at the expense of others who have little themselves. There is much talk of guarding against scams, but, within a system ruled by money, profit and wealth accumulation, such activities cannot be controlled. There may be attempts, via legislation or policing, to curb their extent, but, as with the other multiple problems the system throws up, it is unlikely to end up as anything more than tinkering at the edges.

Having said this, we must also observe that, though few people would mind having more money or being rich, the vast majority of us would not stoop to cheating or deceiving other individuals to achieve that purpose. At the same time, it cannot be denied that, while we are essentially cooperative creatures, we are also capable of a wide range of non-cooperative behaviours according to the situations we find ourselves in or are imposed on us. So, in some of us, the competitive nature of the society we live in can trigger anti-social forms of behaviour – the so-called ‘worst instincts’. Yet we all know from personal experience and on a day-today basis that most of those around us, far from seeking to make gain at the expense or disadvantage of others, are more likely to go out of their way to come to their assistance. It is, in fact, no exaggeration to say that even the very system we live in, competitive though it is at the core, depends on us cooperating with one another on a day-to-day basis in order for it to operate. The remarkable thing is that, though ‘money rules’ is the bane of most people’s existence, dictating actions and priorities and often causing hardship and suffering, this does not prevent so many of us from behaving generously towards others even if it means financial loss or inconvenience for ourselves. The recent World Happiness Report by Gallup, after carrying out exhaustive research, concludes that a key source of human happiness is being generous to others and engaging in volunteering activity. This writer can only reflect on how much more effectively human cooperation and generosity would flourish in the moneyless society based on voluntary work, democratic organisation and free access to all goods and services that we call socialism.

Howard Moss

The affairs of the criminal. (1911)

From the March 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Press has given no little attention to the Government’s changes in the methods of handling released convicts. Has the Socialist anything to say on the matter ? Yes. He, like the rest of the workers, is called upon to support the administration that thus deals with the suppression of “crime” and “criminals,” and, since he would influence the workers in another direction, he must give reasons why he refuses to support that which, for him, is a detail of capitalist defence. The occasion, then, calls for some discussion of the new arrangements and, necessarily, as the Socialist view is quite distinct from, and in violent contrast with, every other view, a general statement of the nature of “crime” and “criminals.”

To-day men speak of actions as criminal which are commonly held to be very immoral—actions in violation of the law of the land, or of what is considered to be correct living. But in the narrow sense those are criminals whose actions bring them within the cognizance of the Law of the day, and render them liable to imprisonment or death.

It is useful to point out in the first place the important fact that there is nothing fixed or absolute in “crime.” Actions that are “criminal” at one time or in one country, are not so at another time or in another country, In Borneo and New Guinea, to this day among the natives, man-eating is quite correct, while in most other lands it is criminal. To-day, in England, someone sticks a knife into a fellow human and gets hunged for it, while another pushes his knife, on the end of a Lee Enfield, into a man whom he never saw before, and is a “hero.” Often in the past the usurer and he who “cornered” stuffs was hoist on the gallows or imprisoned, but now such a person has but to succeed to be acknowledged a smart fellow, worthy of every honour. One might continue indefinitely to multiply examples showing the changes in men’s attitude towards certain conduct, but it is more interesting to enquire why these changes take place.

Take our examples. Those who have studied savage life tell in that behind custom aud ritual cannibalism has its roots in famine—in human necessity. And men “make virtue of necessity.” With peoples in a higher stage of development, the necessity has passed away, and with that the virtue. Here “order” of a different kind is required ; industry must proceed with a minimum of waste and disturbance, and the stranger within the camp may be more useful to the ruling interest alive than dead ; human sympathy comes through in queer ways, for man who may starve one another may no longer eat one another.

Likewise your fellow with the knife—he has become a general nuisance. The rich have other tools, and no longer have need of the bravo ; there’s no virtue in him, and he is suspended. The soldier, on the other hand, is a handy fellow. In orderly fashion he will proceed to wipe out the inconvenient Kaffir or the troublesome workman. The more he kills the finer fellow he is.

Clearly here the change of attitude is due to the change of interests—interests, of course, of men in a position to enforce their desires—ruling interests. Such are only the common interest or that of the great, majority, while society is in its primitive stages. But since classes evolved, men have been branded as criminal and punished for actions that conflict with the class-interest dominant at the moment.

Unlike the Christian and capitalist hack, the Socialist may not approach this question through the mysteries of God given conscience, and the assumed absolute “right” and “wrong,” but must view it from the basis of human experience. He perceives that crime is a question of circumstances, pre-eminent among which is class-interest. Class-interest decides that the satisfaction of men’s hunger by taking and eating bread is in certain circumstances criminal. The principle of property—the basis of class rule—may not be violated with impunity. The punishment for man-slaying in certain circumstances will be found to be ultimately on the same basis of class-interest, just as sanitation was undertaken when the gay clothing made in fever-infested slums wan found to kill aristocrats.

Criminality, then, depends upon circumstances, and your criminal is a victim of such.

Let men but consider the criminal’s case and ask how came he in such a position. They will find that such are made of very much the same flesh and blood as themselves, that while unasked-for inherited characteristics count for something, it is essentially the difference of circumstances, of child-training, companionship, opportunity, and requirements, that accounts for the difference between the criminal and the man in the street.

Our opponents are fond of bragging of the “individual” who makes his mark and imposes his will upon the world, as though he were some Olympic deity. But the slightest examination of the individual’s career will show that he is but a fly upon the wheel, and makes little difference. Rather than he imposing his will upon the world he will be found to derive that will, in its specific form, from the world about him, the social organisation or system of which he is but an atom. That system to-day is one wherein the means of livelihood, of joyous and comfortable existence, are greedily monopolised by a small class—the ruling, capitalist class. The great bulk of mankind are kept poor and hungry and anxious and miserable, and as such are treated with contempt until, taking instruction from the masters, they come to hold one another in disdain. When some seek to satisfy their needs—seek to get out of their wretched position—in ways inconvenient to the ruling class, the latter, with its instrument the machinery of State to hand, lands them in gaol.

Latterly the ruling class has taken to improving its prison arrangements—all in the interest of the prisoners, of course. Some of the revelations of police persecution and “criminal”-breeding under the “ticket-of-leave” system have made somewhat of a scandal, while the more up-to-date and cheaper prison-elevator schemes of the Salvation Army and other bodies seem to offer a better way.

The latest scheme is to hand the supervision of released convicts over to a new organisation composed of the Salvation Army, the Church Army, and other bodies concerned to clear the streets of the human wreckage produced by capitalism.

Here is no real improvement on the old conditions, for these organisations can only do as in the past, namely, force the men to work for next to nothing and destroy outside firms, as in the notorious case of the firewood industry. It means that badly paid workers will be discharged and replaced by worse paid ones. Others will go to gaol instead of these—that is your reform.

The Socialist cannot stand for any such hollow sham, and must needs denounce it. He knows that while the criminal withholders of the people’s bread are allowed to keep on the even tenor of their way, and millionaires are produced at one end of the social scale, gaols will be filled at the other. He knows that millions of sons and daughters of men shall rot aud die in the brothels and gaols, secular aud religious and industrial, of capitalism ere it shall be ended. Let Tories and Liberals and Labour men continue their shams and futilities. For us the cleansing touch of Revolution !

H. B.

Juvenile Delinquency (1948)

From the January 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is well-known that over a very large number of years the figures for Juvenile Delinquency have been constantly rising until, in recent years, they have reached such proportions as to constitute a formidable problem to the Capitalist State.

During the war years complete statistics were not available although what evidence there was showed a sharp increase. More figures, however, are now becoming available.

The “Report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for the year 1946” emphasises the seriousness with which the problem is regarded.

The Report (p.38) states “Statistics in age groups of the population within the Metropolitan Police District are not available to facilitate deductions as to the growth of crime among children but comparisons of the number of children arrested in 1946 with the figures for those of similar ages arrested in 1945 and 1938 make it only too clear that juvenile crime is increasing among the very young,” and later, “Nobody can fail to be impressed by the figures showing the large numbers of children up to 16 years old who are engaged in crime: the graphs of ages of persons arrested show very large peaks for these ages.”

The figures for juvenile crime approach very closely the figures for adult crime and the Report says of this (p.39) “Nearly half the arrests for burglary and housebreaking were of persons under 21 years of age and 25 per cent. were persons of not more than 16 years old. As regards shopbreaking, the position was even more deplorable. Two-thirds of the persons arrested were under 21 and 30 per cent, were schoolchildren.” The Daily Telegraph, commenting on this Report, says (11/7/47) “The distressing evidence of a fresh growth of juvenile criminality indicates that crime has no difficulty in enlisting thousands of new recruits each year.”

The figures given refer to the Metropolitan Police District only and it is interesting to note that in the Home Office Circular 807624 (1941), the proportion for the total indictable offences, in 1938, is given as: “committed by adults 21 years and over” 49 per cent., “committed by juveniles under 21 years ” 51 per cent. (36 per cent. of the whole total by those under 17 years of age). Many reports have been made on the subject and a large number of books written on it with, it would seem, every author advocating a different solution to the problem, ranging from the sadistic to the Utopian. More punishment, less punishment, corporal punishment, kindliness, State control of children, removal from environment, treatment by psychologists, punishment of parents, education of parents, more hostels, the abolition of slums—all these and more are the remedies of the reformist and humanitarian authors.

The overwhelming mass of delinquency is “crime” against property and, as the Capitalist system of society is based on the class ownership of the means and instruments of production and distribution, the ownership of private property and the inviolability of that ownership is, of necessity, the prime concern of the Capitalist class and of the State, which functions in the interests of that class. The full resources of law and jurisprudence are directed to the protection of the rights of property ownership and the monstrous machinery for the enforcement of those laws intrudes into, restricts and controls the life of every human being in contact with them.

So well is the conception of the inviolability of private property ownership absorbed into the ideas of society that it has become accepted as an absolute rule and its validity is rarely questioned. Therefore, the violation of these laws, even by children, results in the drastic and summary punishment of the offender.

Should private property ownership rights be violated it becomes of paramount importance to the property owning class to apprehend the violator and, having done so, to use the methods they consider best suited to prevent subsequent violation by that person and as a deterrent to potential violators. In past days society regarded juvenile law breaking as a symptom of inherited wickedness and children were imprisoned, transported or hanged, for their offences and until quite recently the most effective deterrent was considered to be severe punishment including imprisonment and birching. The ruling class have never been particular about the means used to gain their ends, but in the case of juvenile delinquency the results were disappointing to them.

In spite of the severity of punishment the delinquency always increased. Savage sentences neither reformed the delinquent nor served as a deterrent to others, and so the methods of dealing with the delir-qnent juvenile have gradually changed. Imprisonment and corporal punishment have largely given way to the approved or reformatory school where the young delinquents are “taught” rather than whipped.

Much is heard lately of the newest editions of these approved schools, known as rehabilitation centres. These modern institutions rely on a more scientific and psychological treatment of the young, dealing with them more from the angle of children who, because of various unfortunate circumstances, have strayed from the path of rectitude and can be reclaimed. Part of this psychological treatment is in kindlier and more tolerant usage and more freedom.

Reformists will claim that the changing law, the new institutions and the less harsh methods of dealing with the inmates are the results of long years of effort on the part of individuals and institutions interested in the reform of juvenile law and corrective establishments. Whilst it may be true that a large amount of data has been collected by such individuals and institutions on the behaviour and reaction of children to certain forms of treatment, and whilst some of this information may be utilized in these new establishments, it is much more true to say that the State has been forced into using new and somewhat experimental methods because of the failure of the old, and, if these have followed lines advocated by the reformists, it is not from any humanitarian motives but because such methods may offer a better chance of turning the potential criminals into what the State, on behalf of the ruling class want—docile and honest wage-slaves.

One point with regard to the modern corrective institution is invariably stressed—and it is a key to the insolubility of the,problem—that detention in it must be a deterrent to further delinquency and as such, must not be made too comfortable lest the children should prefer to be in it rather than go back to their homes and “live in conditions worse than those which would be tolerated in any place of detention and so find compensation in being punished.” (“Juvenile Delinquency and the Law,” p. 168, A. E. Jones.)

It is a moot point, however, whether the new methods reclaim or deter any greater number of juveniles from criminality than the old. What is certain is that both criminality and juvenile delinquency are increasing in spite of a more mobile and efficient police force using the most up-to-date methods and equipment.

Either method, old or new, of dealing with delinquency, must inevitably fail for the simple reason that neither are dealing with causes but both with effects—the effects of Capitalism and, like other effects of Capitalism, such as poverty, insecurity, ill-health, unemployment and war—the very social conditions that give rise to delinquency—there is no solution within the Capitalist system of society. Juvenile delinquency is the inevitable outcome of a system of society that is based on the class ownership of the means of living and which, as a consequence, determines that the vast majority of society shall be divorced from ownership and shall live in poverty and insecurity all their lives, exploited by a minority in order that they, the Capitalist class, shall have wealth, power and luxury. Juvenile delinquents are, almost entirely, working class children. Therefore poverty, whether absolute or relative, is the common denomination of delinquent juveniles, for from that poverty arise the immediate motives of the delinquency—insecurity, frustration, overcrowding, ill-health, ill-treatment, inhibitions and resentments arising from lack of opportunity for self-expression, feelings of inferiority engendered by their class position and “the perplexities, anxieties, frustrations and fatigue associated with employment, the bleakness of unemployment.” (“Child Welfare Outside the School,” p.201, Michael Kaye).

Whilst it is probable that all investigators into the problem of juvenile delinquency agree broadly upon the fact that the social conditions are the root cause of delinquency, they have no solution to the problem. A few reforms in the treatment of delinquents, a few modifications to the laws dealing with juveniles, a pious hope to mitigate poverty or abolish slums, a call for more opportunities and amenities for youth—these have no reality nor any relationship to the real problem.

Subjected to a Socialist analysis the problem is seen to be a manifestation of the social conditions of the time which, in themselves, constitute and produce crime.

The Socialist sees that the existing social conditions are the result of the class ownership of the means of life, that Capitalist relationships are property relationships, that goods are produced, not primarily for use, but for the purpose of making a profit. That the worker is robbed of the values he creates and gets back only sufficient to enable him to exist from week to week in poverty. That in a world of potential plenty the working class go in need always.

Whilst this system of society remains there will be juvenile, as well as adult, delinquency and crime, and no reforms will alter this. Rather, in spite of reforms, will delinquency increase ever further as the working-class position continues to deteriorate and the social conflicts and class antagonisms of Capitalism become yet more fierce as Capitalism becomes increasingly anti-social and decreasingly able to satisfy the needs of society.

Only the Socialist can offer the solution to this problem, which lies in the abolition of Capitalism and the establishment of Socialism, for when the means of life are commonly owned, there will be no more exploitation of man by man and consequently no poverty, no slums and no overcrowding. No need to steal or lie, to cheat or go hungry, no need to prostitute either body or mind or be overburdened with the cares of the economic struggle for existence because there, will be ample of the means of life for all and each will have free access to them. That is the world that is possible for children if their parents want it, but if the parents fail them then the children become the next generation of wage slaves.

J. R. Hall

Proper Gander: Anti-social media (2025)

The Proper Gander column from the November 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

With all the opportunities which social media offers us in the ability to communicate instantly with people anywhere, it’s depressing how much it is used to harm others. ‘Sextortion’ is one example, being a type of online blackmail which is the ‘fastest growing scam affecting teenagers globally’. The number of instances reported to the FBI in America had more than doubled in three years to 55,000 in 2024. In the UK, the National Crime Agency receives 110 notifications each month. In a case of sextortion, someone creates a fake profile on a social media platform such as Snapchat or Instagram and uses it to contact their target, often a teenage boy. Thinking they are communicating with an interested girl, the victim is manipulated into sending naked photos of themselves. Then, the scammer drops the pretence and threatens to share the pictures with the boy’s family and friends unless they send money. One victim was 16 year-old Evan Boettler, who was driven to end his own life by the pressure. His story was the focus of BBC Three’s documentary Blackmailed: The Sextortion Killers. Reporter Tir Dhondy meets Evan’s parents in Missouri, America, devastated by his loss. The identity of the person who scammed Evan isn’t known, although the IP address of the phone they used is found, located in Nigeria. Tir travels to the country, which we are told is the main source of cybercrime in Africa.

In Nigeria, online scammers are known as ‘yahoo boys’, who operate in groups under a leader, some of whom have become very rich. Their workplaces are ‘hustle kingdoms’, a grandiose name for what we see as just a sparse room in a grim hut. Here, the aspiring ‘gang-stars’ as one of them calls himself, sit with mobile phones, messaging duped teenagers thousands of miles away. Several ‘yahoo boys’ agree to speak with Tir, and are surprisingly open about their methods and dismissive of those they con. One says he doesn’t feel bad because he needs the money, and he and others think that the people they target in the West can spare the funds demanded. The scammers are distanced from their victims in several ways: by communicating by phone across continents, through the disparity in wealth, and also by how they are alienated enough to see others just as sources of money, without considering the impact of being blackmailed. While the actions of the ‘yahoo boys’ are reprehensible, these can be explained by how their mindsets and attitudes have been shaped by their circumstances and their culture. Tir accompanies one of them when he visits a priest to buy a ritual which he hopes will bring him more income. This involves him killing and eating a pigeon, one of six or seven rituals the priest says he performs each day, for a price. The priest’s lack of enthusiasm in the ceremony could suggest he doesn’t believe in it himself, meaning he would be scamming a scammer.

The programme doesn’t analyse the conditions in which sextortion arises, dwelling more on the institutions which are supposed to deal with the issue. The representative of the Nigerian state’s fraud and cybercrime police who Tir meets downplays the extent of sextortion and admits that investors are less likely to be attracted to the country if it’s thought of as having high rates of such offences. Tir doesn’t find the person who blackmailed Evan Boettler. Nigeria’s telecommunications provider Glo says they no longer have records of their phone number, and the police’s investigation is slow. Evan’s parents are frustrated by Instagram’s owner Meta not releasing more details which would help with inquiries without a court order, which they believe is convenient for Meta because it would be incriminated by this information. Brandon Guffey, who lost his son Gavin to suicide in similar circumstances to Evan, says Meta has acted negligently and is cynical about its head Mark Zuckerberg’s apology and the ‘PR stunt’ of it pulling 63,000 ‘sextortionists’ accounts on one day. Brandon tried to sue Meta but was scuppered by the law. In the United States, Section 230 is a piece of legislation which generally means that platforms which host online content aren’t held responsible for material posted on them by other people. Arturo Bejar, an ex-employee of Meta, says that the company doesn’t want to know about the extent of sextortion because it doesn’t want to deal with the matter. Social media companies, reluctant to add more safeguards, are ‘unwilling to act because it would harm profits’. Brandon says it’s ‘ridiculous’ that the world’s richest companies aren’t accountable, but the economic weight of these entities gives them this power, backed up by the state through regulations such as Section 230.

The documentary describes how social media companies avoid addressing and highlighting sextortion because this would adversely affect their own interests (a similar attitude to that of the Nigerian authorities). Text statements from Snapchat and Meta at the end of the programme attempt to rebuke some of the criticisms, perhaps recognising that sextortion could damage their profitability. Even if social media platforms introduced more safeguards, or if Section 230 was repealed, this wouldn’t remove what causes sextortion and other fraud. Money compels the issue, most obviously in the amounts demanded by scammers, and behind this is the poverty which contributes to them using this approach for an income. Money, ultimately in the guise of profits, also motivates the owners of the social media companies, with the laws they are supposed to work within being shaped by what is deemed financially advantageous. As with everything it underpins, the money system has tainted social media, creating problems like sextortion which the institutions around it aren’t in a position to resolve.

Mike Foster

Crime marches on (1950)

From the August 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

To flog, or not to flog? That is the question which the daily press recently thrust upon its readers as the burning issue of the day, and which it discussed at great length with much emotion and, in some instances, precious little consideration for the facts; probably with no other result than to make the public—including the potential delinquent—cosh conscious. That violence is a serious problem for which a solution is long overdue, few would deny; but is flogging the answer? Let us quieten the hysteria for a moment and, like all good scientists, take a look at the facts.

The first and most obvious fact which should come to mind is that until September 1948 flogging was used to deal with various types of violence. This was provided for by a number of Acts such as the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861 as amended by the Garroters Act of 1863, so it cannot be said that flogging has not been given a fair trial. In spite of this however, violence is not only still with us, but since 1938 has increased rapidly. The number of robberies with violence increasing from 287 in that year to 1,101 in 1948 (News Chronicle 24/3/50). After flogging was abolished however, the number of cases decreased from 711 during the first nine months of 1948 to 597 in the corresponding period of 1949 (Daily Mirror 17/3/50). Conversely, during the six years that followed the introduction of the Garroters Act, viz. 1863 to 1869 there was, to quote Lord Aberdare who was at the time Under Secretary at the Home Department, “ a slight increase in these crimes.” (See “The Lawbreaker” by E. R. and T. Calvert, Routledge, 1933, p. 241). Another interesting example was the introduction of whipping as a punishment for procuration by the passage of the Criminal Law Amendment Act in 1912 which resulted in a tremendous increase in the offence in 1913. The actual figures are as follows: —

Persons for trial for procuration

1910 25

1911 18

1912 14—Whipping introduced during this year

1913 73 

1914 41 

(see, “Social Aspects of Crime in England Between the Wars ” by Dr. Hermann Mannheim, Al!en & Unwin, 1940, p. 51)

From these facts it is obvious that flogging is not only a failure as a solution to violent crime but its effect as a deterrent is. to say the least, extremely dubious. Neither, of course, will the abolition of flogging solve the problem. No problem can be solved by ignoring it. These methods must fail because they leave the cause of the trouble untouched.

The first task for anybody seeking a solution is to understand the problem. Many instances of violence such as assaults on policemen or nightwatchmen are the result of hindering the burglar in the practice of his profession. We cannot, in fact, separate violence from the crime problem as a whole. We shall not, therefore, make the attempt.

Before seeking a clear insight into the causes of crime it is necessary—as with so many things—to clear away a big cobweb of misconception which clouds so many people's vision. This is the attractively simple but quite erroneous idea that the whole trouble is caused by a “criminal type"; a sort of biological monstrosity, like Siamese twins or two-headed giraffes; a mental monster whose criminal activities are the result of some inborn crime instinct. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and amongst those who have made a study of criminals the idea is generally discredited. Listen, for example, to Dr. Goring who, after making a careful examination of no less than 3,000 convicts, makes the following observations: —

“This anthropological monster has no existence in fact. The physical and mental constitution of both criminal and law-abiding persons of the same age, class, stature, and intelligence, are identical. There is no such thing as an anthropological criminal type." (“The Lawbreaker,” p. 44)

In fact the evidence tends to show that they are ordinary people like ourselves, a large number of whom possess many excellent qualities. For instance on page 54 of the same book, Mr. Justice du Parq is quoted as reporting a type of prisoner who is “young, determined, and adventurous," and Leo Page, who has a wide first hand knowledge of criminals, tells us in his book “Crime and the Community” (Faber & Faber, 1937 p. 99) that:

“One finds with a shock of surprise that they (professional criminals) can be courteous and well mannered, grateful and appreciative of just treatment or of a little kindness, or passionately fond of music or of flowers; they are often brave—a good burglar, for example, must of necessity be a man of nerve, courage and resource; some are well read, with a real love of books; others can be wonderfully loyal, in the odd distorted way in which they understand the meaning of the word; very many retain amongst all their troubles a smiling acceptance of fate and a keen sense of humour.”

It seems that we must look elsewhere for the causes of crime.

The law is a social institution made by man, it is not a biological product; so also is crime—its opposite pole or complement—a social phenomenon, and it is in society and not the individual that we must look for an explanation. Government and the machinery of state, which make and enforce the law, exist to conserve those private property institutions which are so vital to the interests of the ruling class and the continued smooth running of their capitalist economy. This being the case, we should expect to find some connection between crime and social conditions generally and economic conditions in particular. Let us put the matter to the test.

Dr. Mannheim tells us (Social Aspects etc., p. 123) that “the significance of economic factors in the causation of crime is fairly generally accepted," and farther on (pages 127 to 130) he reproduces statistics which show the figures for crime rising and falling through the years almost in step with those for unemployment; the only exception being after the slump of the early thirties when, although crime figures dropped for the older age groups, those for the younger groups continued to rise right up until the outbreak of war. This may be explained by other social factors; possibly the waning influence of religion during the inter-war period and the growing tendency of the rising generation to criticize hitherto accepted moral standards.

Another excellent example of the influence of economics upon lawlessness, which can be gleaned from pages 105-7 of the same book, is that of Germany whose terrific crime wave in the early twenties can be accounted for by the economic distress following her military defeat in 1918. It is also significant that whilst the figures for simple larceny had rocketed from 202,885 in 1920 to 308,005 in 1923, which was the peak year of her inflation, those for coining actually "slumped" from 341 in 1921 to 156 in 1923, so reflecting the instability of the Mark. Immediately after stabilization, however, there was a “boom” in the offence which resulted in no less than 1,094 convictions. In England where the economy had not been so seriously disturbed, crime increased far more steadily.

Lack of space makes over-simplification unavoidable and we fully recognize that all crime cannot be traced to economic factors so directly as this. We fully appreciate the importance of war and insecurity, and the effects of gross inequalities and the degrading position of the wage slave; all of them factors which themselves spring more or less directly from the capitalist nature of society. It could be argued that even the majority of sex crimes spring from the unnatural sexual institutions thrown up by property society; but as Dr. Goring tells us that 95 per cent, of all prisoners are convicted for acquisitive offences, (“The Lawbreaker", p. 39) we will not labour the point.

We live in an acquisitive society where we get our living in permanent competition with our fellows, and often at their expense; where periodic orgies of blood and violence such as we have recently experienced tend to instil a bias? attitude towards human suffering. Many people not only grow up in such a world and have the outlook which it engenders but they see also a few people living in a surfeit of luxury and ease without the necessity of work, whilst they are doomed to a life of toil; living in some overcrowded hovel in a sordid and ugly slum environment, through no fault of their own—other than choosing the wrong parents. Is it, then, not cause for wonder that so few take matters into their own hands and ignore those laws which enable a privileged minority to keep them in poverty and subjection?

Let us face it; there is no easy solution, the roots of crime go deep into the very basis of society itself. A vicious and competitive economy gives rise to vicious and anti-social behaviour. An economy based on a community of interests will give rise to co-operative and social behaviour; its establishment is the most urgent task confronting society today; and society includes you.

Meanwhile; crime marches on!

J. Trotman

Letter: Criminal classes (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Criminal classes

The Socialist Party persistently state in their vintage way that there are only two classes in society. I beg to differ. My list of classes would include criminals who were once members of the working class, and the self-employed. Your figures of two classes is petty.

R. West

London W.10

Reply:

Your contention about criminals might be answered by looking at court reports in the newspapers. Do the accused give their occupations as “burglar”, “smash-and-grab raider” or “bag snatcher”? Of course not. They describe themselves as salesmen, labourers, drivers, factory workers, unemployed etc. — in short, as members of the working class.

The definition of a worker is one who has no ownership of the means of living and is therefore forced to sell his labour-power, his only possession, in order to live. There are always numbers trying to escape this life-sentence or to solve the perpetual working-class problem of insufficient money, by crime. Hardly any live by it; it is a sporadic activity, and for the rest of the time the individual is faced with having to find a job because that is his class position.

By “self-employed” presumably you mean small shopkeepers and other one-man businesses. Again, consider definitions. A capitalist, because of his ownership of the means of production, employs people and appropriates the surplus value created by them to turn it into interest and profit. A person using no other labour-power than his own is not in this position. If he is a shopkeeper his profit is from trading, i.e. it is a small portion of what is realized from the surplus value created in manufacture. Generally his position is no different from what it would be if he were an employee, nor is his income. As an example, some “landlords” of public-houses are managers employed by breweries and others are tenants and allegedly “their own masters”; in practice the difference is purely one of business administration and the “landlord” is a member of the working class — as are these self-employed individuals as a whole.

Editors.

The Crackmen's Lot — and the Safe-Makers (1956)

From the August 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

Capitalist prosperity has been very good for the safe-makers. Well-filled order books are reported by all the big manufacturers, and exports have increased considerably. Not a re-assuring piece of news for the burglar, of course, though apparently he’s doing his best to cope, improving his efficiency and competitiveness in the true capitalist spirit. As an interesting little article in the Financial Times stated the other day (18th July):—

 “The essential problem for the heavy safe maker is to keep at least one step ahead of the burglar. The number of attacks on safes and strongrooms may not have increased in recent years, but the methods of the burglar have kept pace with scientific advance.

“The safe cracksman to-day may well employ as standard equipment the oxy-acetylene blowpipe, electric drills and explosives."

Really trying hard to move with the times, one must agree. And, naturally, the safe-makers must do the same. 

  “The best of modern safes are designed to be resistant against any foreseeable kind of attack. Thus the walls are constructed of several types of different steels, each with its own particular resistant property. Some of these special steels have proved totally impenetrable to the blowpipe.

“Explosive is a common method of attack to-day, especially as a means of shattering the locks. Anti-explosive devices are now provided so that even if the lock is completely destroyed the door will remain firmly closed."

At the same time, of course, the safe manufacturers must make a lot of security arrangements on their own account. It would never do, for example, to leave a lot of duplicate safe numbers lying about.

 “Safe makers are very careful about their own security arrangements. They keep no copies of keys or records, while at their works the safes are known by number only and the customer is never disclosed.

 “The choice between combination or key lock is a matter for the customer’s preference. The idea that the burglar can hear a combination lock fall into place is claimed by the makers to be a complete fallacy, however. A four tumbler combination may have 100m. different combinations. The cracksman reduces these odds by trying first obvious numbers, such as dates of birthdays in the owner's family."

What with a 100 million different combinations to choose from, steel doors to blow open, no possibility of hearing the tumblers falling into place, plus other such hazards as the local policeman seeing a light or hearing the bang, the cracksman doesn’t seem to have much of a chance. But the manufacturers apparently aren’t so sure.

So unsure are they that they have set themselves a standard of workmanship and reliability. What it is, you’ll never guess.,

  “The standard which is normally worked to is that the safe or strong-room should resist attack by known methods for a period of four days—the length of the longest bank holiday."

Henceforth, our Easters and Christmases are going to have added sorrow—the thought of safe-manufacturers lying awake at nights wondering whether their standard is going to last the week end. One thing’s a necessity under capitalism:—a sense of humour!

Stan Hampson

Letters: Oxfam — only seeking to alleviate (1995)

Letters to the Editors from the July 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

Oxfam — only seeking to alleviate

Dear Editors,

I was greatly saddened by the attack on the work of Oxfam by your columnist,"Scorpion", in the May Socialist Standard. Oxfam has never claimed, as Scorpion implies, to end hunger, disease, exploitation and poverty, that is endemic to capitalism in the third world; and the first one for that matter, but does set out to alleviate some of the effects of these evils, to the utmost of its abilities. Of course the establishment of Socialism world-wide is the only real answer. but what do we do in the meantime? Sit on our hands and sneer at those who show their concern in a practical way by doing something?

Oxfam goes much further than just raising funds to combat the ravishes of war, famine and floods. A vital part of its work is promoting Fair Trade with groups (mostly co-operatives), of small-scale producers of foodstuffs and craft goods in the third world, that are sold in Oxfam shops. Such Fair Trading has grown over the past thirty years so that there are now well over 300 groups in 40 countries that are paid a guaranteed price for their products, that is a fair reflection of their labour, i.e. one that enables workers and their families to provide enough food and other basic necessities including schooling for their children. Oxfam as trading partners are committed to ensuring producers have health and safety regulations in the workplace and are allowed to organise. This kind of practical Socialism in action, is in stark contrast to the gross exploitation by the multinational companies of workers in the third world; most obvious of coffee, tea and banana growers.

Since the early 1970s Oxfam has been campaigning to increase public, and government awareness that the root causes of third world poverty lay in the unfair trading policies imposed by the industrialised countries of the first world, aided by the IMF and World Bank of course. An indication of the impact this has had can be gained from the fact that our government has been stung into threatening to withdraw Oxfam’s charitable status on more than one occasion for being "too political". But Oxfam is part of a growing international movement of more than 50 organisations that are trading for change in the third world, by means of Fair Trade principles. It's a pity that Scorpion didn’t pay a visit to his nearest Oxfam shop to do a little research into the scope of their work, instead of making a cheap jibe in order to fill his column.

Peter Kentfield, 

Norwich

Reply:

You yourself admit that Oxfam only seeks to alleviate. not abolish, world hunger and poverty. So why isn't it fair comment to point out the ultimate futility of only trying to relieve the symptoms while leaving their cause intact? And if, as you say, you accept that "the establishment of Socialism worldwide is the only real answer" surely you should be devoting at least some of your time and energy to promoting this too? By not doing so you are helping to prolong “the meantime" and its miseries including those Oxfam and all the other charities are trying to relieve.

"Fair Trading" is merely an extension of the principle of charity since it relies on the generosity of people to buy goods they might not really want or of a lower quality than they can get elsewhere just because they have been produced by poor people in the third world. (This no doubt is why the Charity Commissioners allow it.)

In any event, it is not the solution—or even an embryo of a solution—to the problem of world poverty. Like food handouts, it's only ever going to help a comparative handful compared to the millions who suffer from hunger. You proudly announce that "there are now well over 300 groups in 40 countries that are paid a guaranteed price for their products”. Yet. according to the United Nations, "some 550 million go to bed hungry each night. More than 1.5 billion lack access to clean drinking water and sanitation". (Fact Sheet 2 on "Global Poverty", prepared by the UN Department of Public Information. July 1994, for the World Summit for Social Development, Copenhagen, Denmark. 6-12 March 1995.)

Nor is Fair Trading an example of "practical Socialism in action”. Socialism is the common ownership and democratic control of the productive resources of the Earth. In other words, the expropriation of the multinational corporations and ruling classes who currently own and control these resources. It is only once this world framework has been established that we will be able to get down to the urgent task of tackling world hunger and poverty. The world is quite capable of producing enough to decently feed, clothe and house all its inhabitants, only this is held back and distorted by world market forces which only respect paying demand and the profit motivc. Socialism is needed precisely so that we begin to produce directly to satisfy human needs, instead of for sale on a market—trading whether "fair" or “unfair"—or for profit. 

Editors

A Socialist police force?

Dear Editors,

I was surprised to read your brief reply to Terry Liddle's letter in the May Socialist Standard. The statement that "there won't be any cops or prisons in a socialist society" demonstrates an alarming naiveté which occasionally runs through your publication, made all the more worrying by the fact that it is the voice of people who are proposing to create a better society.

While it's obvious that a great many crimes are directly or indirectly caused by capitalism (especially theft and fraud), surely the worst crimes, such as rape and murder happen because of the mental instability of the perpetrator as much as. if not more than, wider sociological factors. Under Socialism, a police force of sorts would still be necessary to deal with such crimes. If a Socialist society was run properly it would promote a healthier state of mind in its population, but it would still take many years for us to evolve out of a capitalist state of mind. For example, the effects of the capitalist media's exploitation of women, which is a root cause of rape, are now so ingrained in the minds of many men, that a conversion to socialism couldn’t instantly reverse this. If a police force became unnecessary under Socialism, I would estimate it to be two or three generations after conversion. Even then, an organisation would still be needed to investigate suicides, disappearances and the occasional murder or rape which Socialism hasn't been able to prevent.

Your original statement assumes Socialism to be a magic wand, one wave of which will sprit away all of society’s faults. A Socialist society needs to be constructed through a clear, fair, common sense approach, not by making rushed, naive generalisations.

Clive Hendry, 

Suffolk 

Reply:

Our short reply to Terry Liddle was in a different context to the one you posit. He had raised the question of what would happen if vegetarians employed civil disobedience in a Socialist society to oppose practices of which they disapproved, and asked "will socialist cops kick and baton us and throw us into socialist prisons?"

In other words, he was dealing with the question of decision-making and the carrying-out of decisions in a Socialist society. As Socialism will be a fully democratic society without any vested interests decisions of a political nature could be settled after a full and rational discussion of all the pros and cons, ideally ending in some consensus but, if need be, by a vote. Obviously this implies that the minority will accept the majority decision. We think this a reasonable assumption given the sort of society Socialism will be—a real community with a common interest in which democratic values will be generally accepted.. Hence our reply that there won't be any need for a police force armed with batons to enforce decisions, nor for prisons in which to lock up those who refuse to accept them. If those in a minority on some issue won't accept a decision reached in accordance with the agreed procedures then Socialism couldn't function. Socialism is a non-violent society of voluntary co-operation or it isn’t Socialism.

We never said there won't be any occurrences of anti-social behaviour in Socialism or that these wouldn’t have to be dealt with. It is true, however, that we do think that these, too. could be dealt with without recourse to prisons as "places of punishment” or to a special coercive body, whether armed with batons or with guns, which is what a police "force” is.

Most crime today is. as you yourself point out. property crime (people trying to acquire in some way money, or property they can sell for money). In fact this accounts for some 95 percent of all crimes and will of course disappear in a Socialist society, where people won’t need to acquire money before they can satisfy their needs but will be able to do this directly in accordance with the principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs".

As to the 5 percent remaining. of “crimes against the person", a large proportion of these result today from the corruption of relationships and general frustration due to lack of money and from the alienation that occurs in a society of rampant individualism which tries to reduce us to social atoms who only come into contact with each other when we are carrying out some monetary transaction.

So we are talking about a hugely-reduced level of anti-social behaviour which, apart from cases of people losing their temper (and then regretting it), will be carried out by disturbed individuals. Some of these may indeed need to be restrained or temporarily isolated from the rest of the community but not in "prisons" or anything like them; rather with all the best facilities in places like converted country mansions.

Agreed, we probably will need "an organisation", composed of trained and competent people "to investigate suicides, disappearances and the occasional murder or rape”. But this "organisation" would be more akin to today's rail or air accident inspectors than to the uniformed. hierarchical and baton- wielding police force we know today.

Editors

Reconstituted capitalist party

Dear Editors,

What follows is the text of a letter sent to the Labour Party:

"This is my letter of resignation from the Labour Party. The reason for this is my disillusionment with the leadership. The party has always maintained that it is a reformist party, with an emphasis on social justice, rather than socialism. However. "New Labour" is a reconstituted capitalist party. The modernizers in the Labour Party have a vision of "the enterprise of the market . . . the rigour of competition . . . a thriving private sector". This is a contradiction in its attitude towards social justice. F.A. Hayek, the New Right economist, attacked the left's notion of social justice, in that it is incompatible with a market economy, "in which no single person, or group determines who gets what, and the shares of individuals always depend on many circumstances which nobody could have foreseen. the whole concept of social or distributive justice is empty and meaningless". By accepting the "rigour of competition" in a market economy, the Labour Party compromises all notions of social justice to the extent that it becomes, as Hayek states, "a mirage". It is ironic that Hayek used this argument to attack the left, yet the modernizers in the Labour Party will attempt to attach notions of justice to a competitive economy, and in the process be converts to free market capitalism.

The second, more important, reason is that the Labour Party, in government, will set out to change the capitalist system to one in which there is social cohesion with less inequality. Yet will capitalism have the capacity to change? Reforms are generally accepted as temporary and concessionary solutions to the problems of unemployment, homelessness etc..yet it is merely tampering with a capitalist system which is fundamentally exploitative. It becomes useless reforming the social problems, when capitalism is corrupt, and therefore an increasing number of peoples' basic needs are not met in a class-divided society, in which production and distribution is owned and controlled by the minority capitalist class. The only way in which the exploitative system can be changed is through Socialism. This does not mean piecemeal reforms, but by convincing the majority working class that Socialism is desirable and can be achieved on a global scale. Collective ownership and democratic control of the means of production and distribution in the interest of the whole community can be achieved when there are enough Socialists who are willing to take democratic and participatory action against an exploitative capitalist system.

The Labour Party does not stand for Socialism, but has shifted its commitment from state capitalism, to a competitive market capitalism.” 

Robert Smith,

Bristol.